switchblade wrote:Adjacent Attacks would be awesome, but then what about Unlimited Attacks? Plus, in the end, it would take away from the Risk Experience.

I would suggest maybe MAP with Adjacent Attacks instead.

We're suggesting this as an option you can choose to use or not, like whether to use unlimited or adjacent reinforcements. So you could make Adjacent Attacks games, or you could make normal attack games.

At the time this was originally suggested, from May to June 2008, there was a lot less support for the idea due to an unclear statement of the idea, joking poll terms, and various misconceptions with respect to it. So, at Ditocoaf's suggestion, I have reset the poll with 3 very clear choices. If you have already voted, please vote again so I can more easily tally interest/disinterest.

Immediately before being reset the poll read as follows:

What do you think about Adjacent Attacks?

You may select 1 optionGreat Idea! Give it to me now!----------------------------------------- 17 votes----------17%I think this would be kind of fun....I might try it.----------------- 30 votes----------31%It doesn't matter to me either way.----------------------------------- 7 votes-----------7%

I'm sure there are new xml treats that I don't know about, but I'm pretty sure it would not be possible to create and adjacent attacks map. When you conquer a territory you inherit that territory's attack routes, so you can continue attacking across the board. I suppose this COULD be installed as an XML feature instead of a game option, but I think it makes much more sense as a game option. It would be fun on all maps, and the gameplay is very different from normal. It's at least as different as FOW, even though that may seem impossible at first.

A speed adjacent attacks game would be great....but I don't know if a test game would work well. There have already been 3 incidents of people accidentally breaking the rules, twice to break someone's continent. In a speed game, such "mistakes" would be even more unfair and more likely to happen. So I think I will sit out any speed AA unless it is actually a game option so people cannot break the rules.

sully800 wrote:I'm sure there are new xml treats that I don't know about, but I'm pretty sure it would not be possible to create and adjacent attacks map. When you conquer a territory you inherit that territory's attack routes, so you can continue attacking across the board. I suppose this COULD be installed as an XML feature instead of a game option, but I think it makes much more sense as a game option. It would be fun on all maps, and the gameplay is very different from normal. It's at least as different as FOW, even though that may seem impossible at first.

Correct - can't be done in current XML.

sully800 wrote:A speed adjacent attacks game would be great....but I don't know if a test game would work well. There have already been 3 incidents of people accidentally breaking the rules, twice to break someone's continent. In a speed game, such "mistakes" would be even more unfair and more likely to happen. So I think I will sit out any speed AA unless it is actually a game option so people cannot break the rules.

Yeah - I guess it's tricky to remember which game is which - if we had the ability to put Custom tags on each game - then that would be cool - and would display where the tourney tag does.

sully800 wrote:I would like to see a high ranking adjacent attack game just to make sure it doesn't turn into a protective stale mate.

Don't they already do that more often than not???

High ranking games currently involve a lot of protection. Such protection is not needed in AA and would cause a stale mate. I would like to see a few high ranking AA games to make sure the tactics don't play out like normal to create an unbreakable build situation.

Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

True... but his description is close, and makes sense. In fact, if you were playing Fog of War, the only territs you could attack would be those that you can see at the beginning of your turn. He doesn't say that you can always attack them, just that they're the only ones you can attack.

Geger wrote:I like the idea. With fog it will be a perfect combination : you can capture a region only, if you see it at the beginning of your turn !!

That is an alternative definition, and fits the suggestion!

Not exactly...If I own Norway and Lower Canada on World 2.1 I can see both Greenland and Iceland. Does that mean that I can attack Greenland and then Iceland from Lower Canada, not under the current rules, but under the new suggestion it would be allowed.

You are right Lancehoch. The FoW description misses an important part of the proposal. The one that says that a player cannot attack from newly conquered territories. Then better to come back to the original description.

yeti_c wrote:Mainly cos it's a lot harder to ensure the game is following the rules...

However - I would be up for testing that anyways.

C.

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. Although, the two games I played (at least until I was eliminated) I did not see anyone make any mistakes. Also, hopefully people would not be intentionally taking advantage of the situation since it is an attempt to try out a new setting.

yeti_c wrote:Mainly cos it's a lot harder to ensure the game is following the rules...

However - I would be up for testing that anyways.

C.

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. Although, the two games I played (at least until I was eliminated) I did not see anyone make any mistakes. Also, hopefully people would not be intentionally taking advantage of the situation since it is an attempt to try out a new setting.

Yeah, you'd have to be quite the douchebag to see this test as just an opportunity to earn some easy(er) points.

I really like this concept. I got the privilege of playing in one of the test games for these, and so far I've really enjoyed it.

What I like is that you really need to watch everyone else's moves closely and plan out your deployments and advancements very carefully. It's really easy to get your armies spread out and be unable to defend yourself.

I would be interested to see this on a map with no "free" bonuses. The classic map has the Oceania bonus, which, if you get it in an AA game, is a great stronghold, and you can build out into Asia really easily (yes, I know that's not actually the "continent" names anymore, but I haven't bothered to learn the new ones and everybody knows what I'm talking about). Something like Germany, where there are no small bonuses to grab early and dominate from.

Plus, I think this would work better with the No Cards option. That burst of troops at the right time from cards is way more of a momentum swing in this than in regular games.